• Before 1440: a single book could take a scribe months to copy
• A Bible cost roughly the equivalent of a house
• Literacy was confined to clergy and a thin elite
• Knowledge was scarce, expensive, and controlled

“The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being.” — Thomas Jefferson

1. Explain why the printing press was a disruptive technology
2. Describe the economic mechanisms through which it changed knowledge markets

3. Analyze how information dissemination altered social structures and power
4. Apply a political economy framework to understand winners, losers, and institutional resistance

5. Interpret empirical evidence on the press’s long-run effects

• Movable metal type: individual letters cast in lead alloy, reusable
• Oil-based ink: adhered to metal type better than water-based inks
• Wooden screw press: adapted from wine and olive presses
• Standardized paper: cheaper than parchment (animal skin)

None of these elements was entirely new — the combination was revolutionary.

Key insight: The break-even point occurs around 20 copies. Beyond this, printing becomes exponentially more cost-effective than scribal copying.

The press democratized reproduction — but not immediately, and not everywhere equally.

• Supply side: scriptoria (monastic and commercial) — few producers
• Demand side: Church, universities, wealthy patrons — few buyers
• Price: extremely high → books as luxury goods
• Consequence: thin market, no incentive to expand literacy

This is an equilibrium — and the press broke it.

1. Entry barriers fell: a press cost ~20 guilders; a scriptorium required decades of training
2. Output exploded: by 1500, an estimated 20 million volumes had been printed in Europe (from near zero in 1450)

3. Prices collapsed: book prices fell by roughly 80% within 50 years
4. Variety expanded: printers published what sold — not just what the Church commissioned

The press created the first mass market for ideas.

Pattern: Slow initial adoption (1450s), rapid acceleration (1460s-1480s), then saturation as most commercial centers acquired presses by 1500.

Interpretation: By 1600, Europe was producing more books in a single decade than had been produced in the entire previous century.

Before the press:

• Information flowed through hierarchical channels: pulpit, court, university
• The Church had effective monopoly on large-scale communication
• Dissent was local and easily suppressed

After the press:

• Pamphlets could reach thousands in days
• Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (1517): an estimated 300,000 copies within 3 years
• Governments and the Church could no longer control the narrative

• Luther deliberately used the press — wrote in German, not Latin
• Between 1518 and 1525: an estimated ~6 million pamphlets circulated in the German lands
• Cities with printing presses adopted Protestantism faster

“Printing is God’s highest act of grace.” — Martin Luther

Key insight: The Reformation was not caused by the press — but it is hard to imagine without it.

The press created a new middle class of knowledge workers.

DAG interpretation: The press affects political change through three main pathways: (1) direct information access, (2) literacy-driven human capital, and (3) the Reformation as a mediator.

Key principles:

1. Technological adoption is not automatic — it requires institutional permission or tolerance
2. Incumbents who lose from the technology will try to block it

3. The speed of diffusion depends on the balance of power between adopters and resisters
4. Institutions (property rights, censorship laws, guilds) shape who wins

The printing press is a textbook case of this framework.

Pattern: Urban commercial groups gained; traditional knowledge monopolists (scribes, Church) lost power and income.

• First Arabic-script press in Istanbul not established until 1729 (vs. 1450 in Europe)
• Religious establishment (ulema) argued printing the Quran was sacrilegious
• Scribes’ guild had political influence at court
• Sultan granted monopoly to calligraphers

Political economy logic: incumbents (scribes, clerics) had veto power; potential adopters (merchants) lacked political voice.

Consequence: slower accumulation of human capital relative to Western Europe.

Result: England developed a more open knowledge market earlier → contributed to earlier industrialization.

Divergence: By 1700, the Dutch Republic had near-total press freedom (index = 10), while the Ottoman Empire had complete prohibition (index = 0). England and France fell between these extremes.

• Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1559): Catholic Church’s list of banned books
• Licensing Acts (England, 1538–1695): pre-publication censorship
• Book burnings: symbolic but often ineffective

Key insight: censorship is costly to enforce and creates smuggling incentives

• Banned books were printed in tolerant jurisdictions (Netherlands, Switzerland)
• Prohibition often increased demand (the “forbidden fruit” effect)

Key findings from Jeremiah Dittmar’s study:

• Cities that adopted the printing press grew 20–80% faster than comparable cities without a press (1500–1600)
• The effect is robust to controlling for pre-existing city characteristics
• Mechanism: press cities attracted human capital and commercial activity

Identification strategy: exploited variation in geographic proximity to Mainz (distance as an instrument for early adoption).

Magnitude: By 1600, early-adopter cities were roughly 2–3 times larger than comparable cities without presses, controlling for initial size.

Evidence from economic history:

• Becker & Woessmann (2009): proximity to Wittenberg (Luther’s city) predicts higher literacy and economic outcomes centuries later
• Dittmar & Seabold (2019): cities where Luther’s ideas spread via the press had higher rates of schooling by the 19th century

• Rubin (2014): the press mattered most where existing institutions did not block it

Takeaway: technology + permissive institutions → persistent human capital advantage.

Discussion question: Is the internet more or less disruptive than the printing press? Why?

Similarities:

• Technology reduces cost of information reproduction
• Incumbents resist (traditional media, governments)
• New intermediaries emerge (platforms are the new printers)

Differences:

• Speed: the press took decades to spread; the internet took years
• Scale: the press reached thousands; the internet reaches billions
• Concentration: the internet has produced much more concentrated gatekeeping (Google, Meta) than the press ever did

1. The printing press was a disruptive technology because it collapsed the cost of reproducing knowledge
2. It created new knowledge markets: lower prices, more variety, wider access

3. It shifted social power from clerical/aristocratic elites toward urban, literate middle classes
4. Institutions shaped diffusion: where incumbents could block the press, they did — with lasting consequences

5. The political economy framework (winners/losers, institutional constraints) applies to all technological transitions

1. Why did the Ottoman Empire resist the press while Western Europe (mostly) embraced it? What does this tell us about institutions and technology?

2. Is the comparison between the printing press and the internet useful? What are its limits?

3. Can you think of a modern technology where incumbents are currently trying to block adoption? Who are the winners and losers?